So why wasn't he in the league to begin with? Why did it have to come down to another player being injured?

I believe the early fixation on keeping Bennett at third line Center and then the decision to bring in Jagr left the only spots on the bottom line and I can see how they thought he'd be better served starting with top minutes in the A rather than get stapled with plugs on the bottom line.

Considering he was only in Stockton for 15 days or so (time he spent absolutely tearing it up and gaining confidence and momentum) why does it matter?

You were recently given a time-out for enduring and unabashed negativity were you not? This is what you come back with? The team hasn't lost a game since you were gone and is playing the best hockey of the season and your take-away is to slight Treliving for a minor roster move to start the season and proclaim you believe this recent stretch of good play won't last?

He was cheap to acquire and inexpensive to pay and had a very low cap hit and some experience.

It was really, really low risk.

The risk was also that, if neither Rittich or Gillies is ready, you end up with a non-NHL caliber backup. He was terrible the last two seasons. His performance this year shouldn't have been a surprise.

Brad Treliving may be great at signings, but he has demonstrated himself to be pretty poor evaluator of talent. Jankowski should have been up at the start of the year.

We'll see if the Flames keep this up, but I'm guessing based on the past history of this team that the coach throwing his stick or having a beer with the guys isn't going to lead to a permanent culture change.

If the biggest mistake BT makes is keeping Janko in the minors for 15 games longer than he should have (for the record IMO it's not his biggest mistake) then he and us Flames fans should be very happy.

I believe the early fixation on keeping Bennett at third line Center and then the decision to bring in Jagr left the only spots on the bottom line and I can see how they thought he'd be better served starting with top minutes in the A rather than get stapled with plugs on the bottom line.

Considering he was only in Stockton for 15 days or so (time he spent absolutely tearing it up and gaining confidence and momentum) why does it matter?

You were recently given a time-out for enduring and unabashed negativity were you not? This is what you come back with? The team hasn't lost a game since you were gone and is playing the best hockey of the season and your take-away is to slight Treliving for a minor roster move to start the season and proclaim you believe this recent stretch of good play won't last?

It's interesting that this is how you perceive Calgarypuck to work. If someone is critical of the team for a sustained period of time, they will be banned.

It's also even more fascinating that you decided to take things in that direction.

Room should have been made for Jankowski, instead they did the opposite. A trick that they've pulled so many times before.

It's interesting that this is how you perceive Calgarypuck to work. If someone is critical of the team for a sustained period of time, they will be banned.

It's also even more fascinating that you decided to take things in that direction.

Room should have been made for Jankowski, instead they did the opposite. A trick that they've pulled so many times before.

Mason Raymond was my favourite.

A lot of people are frustrated by so called fans who do nothing but incessantly put the team down. It seems to be the only reason you come here - and again - you're in a post game thread for their sixth win in a row and all you comment on in regards to recent play is:

"We'll see if the Flames keep this up, but I'm guessing based on the past history of this team that the coach throwing his stick or having a beer with the guys isn't going to lead to a permanent culture change."

Maybe you want to expand on that? So you're suggesting they need to clean house?

And btw, they did make room for Jankowski. I really don't see what you're complaining about going so far as to suggest Treliving is a " pretty poor evaluator of talent" because of it. If anything, the decision to not start him between Stajan and Brouwer and stifle him was probably the more apt move seeing as his brief and hot start in the AHL seems to have allowed him to hit the ground running in the NHL.

A lot of people are frustrated by so called fans who do nothing but incessantly put the team down. It seems to be the only reason you come here - and again - you're in a post game thread for their sixth win in a row and all you comment on in regards to recent play is:

"We'll see if the Flames keep this up, but I'm guessing based on the past history of this team that the coach throwing his stick or having a beer with the guys isn't going to lead to a permanent culture change."

Maybe you want to expand on that? So you're suggesting they need to clean house?

And btw, they did make room for Jankowski. I really don't see what you're complaining about going so far as to suggest Treliving is a " pretty poor evaluator of talent" because of it. If anything, the decision to not start him between Stajan and Brouwer and stifle him was probably the more apt move seeing as his brief and hot start in the AHL seems to have allowed him to hit the ground running in the NHL.

Really bizarre stuff all the way around imo.

Page 12 of the PGT, the day after a win, in which the management of goaltending prospects is being discussed.

I'm suggesting that there are much bigger issues with this team, yes. A problem with team culture that has persisted for years. You seem to be familiar with my past posts.

CT - OK. Maybe write some articles on this topic somewhere else because like I can't stand reading this constant barrage of negativity. Your timing is utterly bizarre after a dominant winning streak, too.

I like some of the guys on here giving CT a hard time about being negative when they themselves were incredibly negative just a short time ago. Team playing well? I love ‘em again!

Really? So if a team plays poorly and someone is critical about their play or some other facet, they MUST stay negative about them the entire season?

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense. Someone can be both positive and negative about different facets of a team. They can also acknowledge that they have been wrong, or that they made too much of an issue. Lots of fans have openly posted about 'eating crow' in the last calendar year.

You don't have to die on the sword. People can change their opinions, things on or surrounding the Flames can be changed for improvement, and life goes on.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Calgary4LIfe For This Useful Post:

Hey don’t get me wrong. It takes all kinds of fans to support a team. I just find it interesting all the flip flopping and crow eating. Everyone supports their team differently I guess. You and I included.

__________________
Be better.

The Following User Says Thank You to SportsJunky For This Useful Post:

Hey don’t get me wrong. It takes all kinds of fans to support a team. I just find it interesting all the flip flopping and crow eating. Everyone supports their team differently I guess. You and I included.

If things change, and your opinion changes with it, that isn't flip-flopping. That's having an open mind and judging what you're seeing rationally.

But sure, if you think having one opinion, and sticking with it no matter what, is a better way to go, knock yourself out.

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:

If things change, and your opinion changes with it, that isn't flip-flopping. That's having an open mind and judging what you're seeing rationally.

But sure, if you think having one opinion, and sticking with it no matter what, is a better way to go, knock yourself out.

I'll eat crow when the Flames stop flip flopping in their on-ice play. But until then I remain unconvinced that this is anything more than the same mid-season run that we've seen multiple times before.

I wonder if the real reason that my posts ellicit such a response is that they're pointing out the hard truth?

Otherwise it's a bit perplexing that a perpetually irrational bridge-dwelling poster like myself would get such a response.

I wonder if the real reason that my posts ellicit such a response is that they're pointing out the hard truth?

You haven't posted a hard truth since you've been here. Try learning the difference between opinion and fact. Also, try wrapping your head around the idea that you do not have the magic power to know the future.

The negative response comes from your endless harping on the same negative details (even in threads where they aren't remotely on topic), along with your habit of insulting everyone who disagrees with you.

__________________
WARNING: The preceding message may not have been processed in a sarcasm-free facility.

The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to Jay Random For This Useful Post: